‘Arrogant’ Andrew is a ‘friendless exile’ whose own family avoid him | Royal Exclusive

Is Edward like the new royal family henchman? It does feel just like classic Andrew at this point. I think it just underlines the arrogance of the man. Meghan wants to use her children to help promote her business and brand and everything else. They've got a nice Easter bunny moment. They're sharing images and videos of their family. What's the point in just showing the backs of their heads? I suppose it's just the half in, half out. This tour to Australia, this is like a dummy run for a Meghan and Harry tour in the UK. I do not believe that Megan will ever set foot in this country again. Up next, it's Red Flair and his new band. Oh, my God, I'm back again. On the fair casino, everybody's been. Gonna bring new games, gonna show you now. New game party. Find new... Dropping hits every week. Find the new slots. 18plusbgamblerware.org Welcome to Royal Exclusive, where this week we celebrate new and young faces at the Royal Family's Easter service, while lonely Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor finally sees a friendly face. And we ask why Harry and Meghan continue to only show the back of Archie and Lilibet's heads. And as the Sussexes are all set to travel to Australia, we have some Royal Exclusive insight into what to expect. Joining me to discuss all of this and more is news.com.au's Royal Reporter Bronte Coy and Royal Reporter Charles Ray. Welcome to you both this week. Now, is there friction, do you think, between Prince Edward and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor? We say it's a friendly face. Edward was the first visitor to go round and see Andrew at his temporary home, Wood Farm. But we understand it was a quiet word in his troublesome brother's ear to say, can you hurry up, get out of Wood Farm and start your new life in Marsh Farm? But why was Edward sent round, of all people? Well, I think he was sent round because he wanted to use Wood Farm, along with Sophie, for their Easter break. and so I think whoever it was said, look, go and have a quiet word. And of course, needless to say, Andrew, being the Andrew that he is, has decided to snub him as well. I mean, he makes no friends. Not even in his own family does he make friends. It would have been very easy for him to have vacated that place and move into the one he's supposed to be moving into, the one that a lot of money has been spent on, quite a bit of it, taxpayers' money as well, has been spent on that. And it had been very easy for them to do that. Just to put it out, I'm not sure the palace would say to that, they're saying, you know, if the king's funding it all, they'll get very funny on that. Well, there's still security and everything else, which is what we're paying for. That's part and parcel of the whole Sandringham scenario. So you've still got to look after them, no matter what. I find it astonishing that they've given us this kind of Easter deadline months and months ago. They said, we think it will be by Easter. We're seeing reports. We're seeing photographs of Andrew walking from Wood Farm to Marsh Farm. We think he is now officially in Marsh Farm. He's left it right up to the end, doesn't he? Right up to the end. And it does feel just like classic Andrew at this point. He's always dragged his heels on all of this. But for it to be the Easter deadline and then, as you say, there are reports that he has now left. but it appears to have been on Easter Monday. So, by the way, just ruling out any family that may have wanted to stay at Wood Farm, which they often do around Easter, Edward and Sophie in particular. And interesting you say that Edward was the first royal to visit him. He was also the first royal to speak publicly about all the dramas surrounding the latest Epstein files and Andrew's relationship to that earlier this year when he spoke in Dubai about it and said we need to remember the victims. So in terms of there being friction within the family, you're exactly right. There's surely friction between all of them with Andrew at this point. And to your point, it's interesting that when he is so friendless and alone, he really is in exile now, that he wouldn't be doing everything he could to keep those very, very few people that really have to. They have a duty of care to help look after him. They're his siblings. They're his family. It's interesting that he's not sort of doing things that will keep them closer to him as opposed to dragging his heels on moving out of Wood Farm when clearly there was a push for him to do that much earlier. I think it just underlines the arrogance of the man. Yes. He's been arrogant all his life. Why is it going to change now? Charlie, you've reported on the rules for many, many years. Be careful. but Edward and Andrew, have they ever been close? Because they're kind of the later children, aren't they? Well, they were the ones who came along when the Queen was as scotched as the monarch and everybody talked about the second family as opposed to Charles and Anne early on. I mean, when you see early pictures of them, yeah, they looked as if they were close but I'm not so sure that they're that close now as they used to be. As Bronte's just said, I don't think Andrews is close to any members of the royal family. I mean, you've just got to look at the pictures of him walking alone, you know, in Sandringham, and he's got nothing, there is nothing in his life to look forward to. There is nothing he's going to get. I was reading something the other day about the type of food that he's going to have to get delivered from Waitrose or Sainsbury's or whatever, Tesco's or whatever it is. And it's got to be done a week in advance to, you know, to give the cook or the chef time, you know, to prepare those meals. So he likes to eat in between those meals with whatever was laid on. Well, he's not going to be able to do that anymore. I don't think the fridge is going to be big enough. And I don't I don't think people will have a whole lot of sympathy for that. It's sort of been described as exile and prison-esque, but it's a very nice set up. And also to that point as well, you know, this conversation about him dragging his heels on moving to Marsh Farm. Wood Farm, Marsh Farm is absolutely beautiful. And also it's been they've done all this work to it. There's luxury carpets being taken in. It's obviously been made more secure. But it's not like he's downgrading to, you know, a really shabby apartment somewhere. It's a really nice place. So, again, it speaks to the arrogance of his situation that he wasn't just doing it at this point. Make friends with your family. do something to sort of keep them in the fold with you. So what do we think? Is Edward like the new royal family henchman? Is he going around to kind of, you know, tell Andrew and read the riot act to Andrew? Or is it the case that, you know, they always book Wood Farm, him and Sophie and the family, and they were forced to stay. It was the garden's house. And this was effectively a holiday let that you can rent if you have enough money. It's about £4,000, but if you have enough money. But he was effectively shoved in this, you know, kind of overflow family house. It's also beautiful. I saw the photos online. I wanted to check. When it seemed that Edward was a bit annoyed about this because he has been sent in as the henchman, which is quite an image, isn't it? Prince Edward as the family henchman. But when I saw that, I thought, well, what does this house look like that he's been forced to go to for his Easter break? Also a stunning home. So I think there's, yeah. None of those properties at Sandringham are rubbish homes. And also, I'd be very, very surprised if Andrew had to put his hand in his pocket to fork out £4,000 for it. I'm sure he reached a good deal free. But with Edward going to see Andrew, it does make sense, I suppose, if one of the royals had to make contact to move this along. Because I think we're joking about how they are all nice houses. Of course they are. Of course it seems trivial. But I think it's because the Andrew drama and the stories about it have been rolling along for months and months and months. And one of the ways to let that sort of just stop so we can move forward and wait for whatever the next step in the process will be, is when there is a resolution on his housing, because it is temporary at the moment, or as we, you know, apparently he has moved into Marsh Farm. But I think that's why the optics of it, and particularly the royals would be very aware of that, is let's make this move permanent, draw the line under the sand, we can move on then a little bit until whatever is going to happen next happens, but at least then he's settled down somewhere. And who else would go but Edward? The king can't be seen. Why can't the king go round and tell him? Borrow a cup of sugar Borrow a cup of sugar I can understand Send William around Oh yeah, that would be cracking In terms of the quiet word I don't think it would be such a quiet word If it was coming from one of them But I think that also, again, they're just giving him a wide berth At the moment, I don't think it helps anyone To be seen to be particularly close with him They're also giving him a wide berth Because we've still got a lot more to come out In this Epstein saga you know there's going to be more and more stories about him and his former wife involved with epstein and no matter what it is it's going to make headlines around the world they should have sent princess anne i was thinking that you would listen to her if she got in there and said you need to move i'd be out of there within five minutes you can tell she'd be she'd lay down the law but it's interesting that you know edward is the first person okay the first rule we didn't get a picture unfortunately but he did go round but there may have been others but I'm led to believe only Edward has been to see him. There's been a few other I think the vicar, local vicar and the head of the household has popped in to see him but only Edward from members of the family. No Beatrice no Eugenie. Who knows where Sarah Ferguson is. They've got their own problems anyway Beatrice and Eugenie so I can't see them scuttling up to Sandringham to see their dad. I mean it's still quite raw for those two girls. It feels like it's been, because we have been speaking about this so much, it feels like a really long time since the Epstein files were released and that Andrew's arrest happened. But really, as you say, it's not been that long and it is still raw. And particularly for the Yorks at this time, it's very much a laying low situation. And for the princesses, they know that they need to just, you know, focus on their families at the moment and stay out of the public eye. And that's the right thing, because this scandal engulfing their parents has been extremely damaging to everyone involved. And so I think that it makes sense that they haven't been up there because that would be quite a big story if you saw, especially if we had photos of them up there. But they've probably been on the I assume they've been checking in with their father at some point because it is their father still. But again, I can see completely why all the other royals have been giving him such a wide berth. But before we move on, it was because we're a very busy week. There's lots of things that happened this week. Before we move on, John, who do you think Andrew listens to? nobody he doesn't listen to anybody I mean clearly doesn't listen to anybody you know or else we wouldn't have had the news night interview for a start off because there were people around there who were saying to him this is not a great idea yes I know Beatrice was saying yeah well it's okay to do it and I'm assuming Fergie was for it as well but he doesn't listen to people I mean people will tell him something and it'll go in one ear and out the other especially if it's a controversial matter? Now, he obviously did listen to someone at some stage because Prince Andrew did not go to the Easter service. He was clearly told not to. He was clearly banned. But also, Sarah Ferguson didn't go. She went last year. Jack and Eugenie and Beatrice and Edo, they didn't go when they'd been last year. And I was fascinated by Easter this year because we talk about New Year's and we have New Year's resolutions and it's the start of New Year. But springtime is rebirth. Easter is is fresh starts, right? And it really felt to me seeing Charlotte with a gentle little wave, George, how tall is he now, by the way, and Louis, and then we had Peter Phillips with his new bride to be with her daughter debuting. It really did feel that we talk about stripped down royals, but Easter felt like the royal family was showing off new young faces, scandal members of the family Crucial detail there scandal It was a snapshot of the modern monarchy I think when you looked at that it really did feel like this is what it can look like This will be the new chapter. And it really felt like it was moving away from everything of the last five or six years, especially. And it was interesting seeing it was Harriet Sperling who's going to marry Peter Phillips in June. Seeing her 15 year old daughter there with Peter Phillips's two daughters as well. It did. It heralded in a new era. And I think it was a critical time to have those images out there in the world. As you say, Easter is a very significant time for a lot of people, but particularly for the royal family. And last year, the Walesers weren't there. I think it's very important that they were there this year. I'm not suggesting they would have tried to get out of it, but I think there would have been no question that the king would have wanted them there for all the reasons you've just said for this year. because it did provide that fresh look of a whole raft of people who have not been involved in any dramas or scandals. And it is a reminder that there is a core family there and there are new royals as well coming through the fold. But I don't think we should run away with the idea that because we've seen Peter Phillips and his bride-to-be and her daughter and everything, that they are going to be on the royal treadmill. Oh, come on, give me some new faces, Charlie. I want some new people. Not necessarily, but it's still good to have... But even having them there with the family. I just do not believe that given the fact that both the king and William want the slimmed down monarchy. OK, it's partially been forced upon them because of the Andrew situation and the Harry situation. But I do not believe you're going to see Peter Phillips stepping up to the plate and doing royal jobs on behalf of the royal family. It's nice pictures. It was great pictures on Sunday that we saw. it was lovely it was nice to see them all there but that's it well the harriet spurling thing is fascinating so i broke the story two years ago we had some pictures of them at badminton at a horse trials and uh we started working on the story and they they were quite open in in in you know saying yes this is harriet and you realize that this was a not just a fleeting thing this was going to be a serious relationship she then went to balmoral last summer the balmoral test she bought her daughter to Balmoral last summer. And they've been very careful with her. I've asked for an interview, no interviews. You know, and I'm told that... Busy routines can make it hard to focus on your health goals, but MedExpress offers a simple way to explore weight management treatment online. Complete our short eligibility consultation with no need for face-to-face appointments or travel. If eligible, treatment is delivered discreetly with UK-registered clinicians offering support along the way. Visit medexpress.co.uk slash podcast to get started today. That's quiet. New York's new protein cold foam, subject to availability while stocks last. Both of them are taking it in their stride, but it must be very, I'm quite excited about them coming into the family. We get a royal wedding this summer, but it must be very daunting to be marrying into this family and turning up at Easter, knowing everything that's been written about Andrew, Harry and Beatrice and Eugenie and Sarah Ferguson must be so daunting for Harry and her daughter. I did have that thought for this 15 year old girl. Incredible to be suddenly walking alongside members of this thousand year old institution. And particularly, as you say, from their background, she's an NHS nurse and her daughter is just 15. But any blended family is a difficult thing to create. And the idea of doing that in the royal family, but then, as you say, with the backdrop of all of the current scandal and scrutiny that's on them, it must be a very, very daunting prospect. But I think so far, as you say, they're doing it well. They're doing it carefully. And it'll be interesting to see what position they do have ongoing in terms of their public profile. Scandal free. Scandal free. ideally but i think it's it's it's a level away from the andrew and harry controversies um so you know i i mean i'm sure they'll they'll they'll make good you know their membership of the royal family or you know harriet's membership of the royal family with her daughter it may be a bit daunting at the beginning but they don't have to go through all that you know strict protocol stuff that William and Catherine have to go through and other members of the royal family. So, yeah, they should get the best of both worlds, to be perfectly honest. What about the children? I was really taken by the fact that it was literally Charlotte was walking, was leading the royals, and you had Louis and George. We don't see them very often. George looks a lot taller. James, Earl of Wessex as well, seems to be growing up very quickly. Do you think the younger royals are, as I say, they're going to have fresh new fate? They're not new, I suppose, but we're showing, you know, these are the future that we see. Well, they are the future. I mean, they're going to be the ones that future royal correspondents, you know, when you are old and aged and everything else, are going to be following around. These are the ones that are going to be the future of the monarchy when her dad is king and her mother is queen. You know, the focus will be on them and they'll be that much older then. Because we do only see them every six months or so. that is particularly the ages they are they really do shoot up you see them and they've as you say they look so much older it's a funny thing to comment on um but yet because it is such a big distance between each sighting it is quite striking when you see them and you go oh goodness there george looks like almost an adult uh but it was there was a real confidence to charlotte's uh entrance to the whole thing which was great to watch yes she has and there's also as well Bronte, it is, they are completely photogenic as well. I mean, they're just great looking kids. They look happy. They're not bothered about waving to the cameraman or the members of the public who are there. So, you know, yeah, and I think William and Catherine are dealing with it in a correct and right way. I was going to say that it's a testament to the way that they've been navigating this um all the way through the children's lives which is finding that balance between their roles their public William and Catherine's roles I mean obviously the children don't have specific roles at this point but that also but with their privacy and allowing them to have a childhood and I think that you see that they do seem to be quite a solid unit when they come out and the kids do seem to have that confidence um and Charlotte always has you see her sort of having a little word to her brothers when they're out and about even when she was much younger. They don't seem daunted. I'd be daunted by that at that age. I think George particularly can be a little bit more reserved than Louis, but I think Charlotte brings out the best in both of them. Whenever you see her, she's always talking to them or she may have an arm. The carriages and stuff like that, she's always telling Louis off or telling George. Yeah, yeah, don't do that, do this and all that. So she's definitely the sort of mother hen of the trio. Very interesting to see all of this 10 years from now, when they're older, what they're all like and how it all plays out. Yeah. Easter wasn't entirely scandal free because there was a bit of a row over why King Charles did not make or write an Easter statement. Charlie, should he have? Yes, he should have had. And I think it was a big mistake by the palace. I know they keep on coming up with the argument that it's not every year that the monarch gives an Easter statement I accept that however, when the king who is defender of faith and is the head of the Church of England praises an Islamic festival like Ramadan and as he should, I have no problems with him doing that but then not to say something, not a word at all on probably the most important Christian festival in this country. It did not go down well with the rest of the country. And I think that was a wrong thing to do. He's a man of faith. He regularly goes to church. He has issued statements in the past. I think the Queen did it in 2020. That's it. The Queen only did it. I do agree with you. And I think it's sort of, just do it because the backlash is not worth it. It's not worth, you know, just write the message. Just write the message. And he is a man of faith. It's not like it's going against something that he believes in. But I did look into this. Of course, the Queen only did one back in 2020. So it's not possibly they were just trying to make it the Christmas message, just the one annual message. And they were trying to sort of break the cycle. But again, so in terms of that, I do understand. But again, it's for one message. Just do it. It's not worth the backlash. But he has given out two Easter messages in the past as well. So this is, if you like, there was form for doing it. Yes. And in particular, I think when people say, and also as well, you've got a brand new Archbishop of Canterbury, who not only is brand new, but is also the first woman to hold the post. I mean, there's an awful lot to celebrate. There's an awful lot of things you can actually say about the Christian faith. And it doesn't need to be, you know, a monologue about it all. It just needs to recognise. And that's why I think the palace were wrong in not urging them to do it. I think they've been justified in your argument is justified in that it is wrong because it's caused such an outcry. There was a kind of just a natural kind of momentum where people thought, well, of course, he should have issued a statement. It allowed all the social news warriors to turn to their keyboards and slag off the king for not doing what he should be doing. What worry on this is, you might be trying to remember the context of it, but there was always discussion that he might be defender of faith. He's defender of the faith. He's defender of the faith, and there was talk about him being defender of all faiths. Of all faiths. And he's kind of been undone by that, where people start questioning his Christianity. you this face that's right but it's the context or and as i said to you i've got no problem with him you know praising other faiths whatsoever but when when you do that and then appear to completely ignore the one faith that you're supposed to be representing on a whole different scale then you know it it wasn't a good look it was it was an own goal see it wasn't scandal free easter they did do a tweet but it was from the royal family to the royal family yeah so it wasn't personally yeah it isn't the same it's not the same it's just just not the same okay and we talked a lot about new faces at easter and young faces at easter and andrew meeting a friendly face or maybe a henchman at his door um to to get out of get out of get out of his house and finally move but why are we not seeing archie and lilibet because there has been an increase i think i think it's been four this year compared to zero for the Waleses of the Sussex's children on social media. There has been. It's been interesting because you do have it running alongside Harry particularly, but Harry and Meghan's campaign about the dangers of being online for children. Now, they're not online. It's not their account. It's her. But then at the same time, I do wonder their children by birth, and as Harry has pointed out, this was very troubling to him when he grew up in this spotlight, by birth, they're going to be famous. They're going to be extremely famous. Then they moved to California so that their children could live a relatively low life which I do completely understand I don quite I mean I think every parent has the right to decide exactly how their child is online and that is completely their prerogative I do find it confusing at times because it does seem to run against what they say, what they've said, and particularly this campaigning about the dangers of being online. I just think the children are already going to be very famous, and it's interesting that there are sort of, she has posted a lot more with them in it, although it is sort of the sides of their heads. You can still tell what they look like. There has certainly been an uptick in it, but it does seem to be related to her brand. What's the point? They've got a nice Easter bunny moment. If you're going to share, they're sharing images and videos of their family for content, for likes. What's the point in just showing the backs of their heads? I agree. It astounds me that they're getting older and older now and we not actually had any looks at what they looked like. I do agree with Bronte about it's up to parents themselves to decide how far they want to go. I mean, the Wales has managed to cope with it brilliantly, very, very well. It appears to me that all we ever see of the Sussex's end is the face of a chicken, you know, when they're out with the chickens. and the shots that we saw of Lilibet with the bunny ears and holding the rabbit running towards, I'm assuming they were collecting Easter eggs and Archie running as well. Lovely shots, absolutely lovely shots and it's a pity we hadn't seen their faces. I suppose it's just the half in, half out. Again, I'm hesitant to criticise this because I just genuinely feel that it's a parent's decision and they're making the decision they think is in the best interest of their kids. But I just always find it interesting when the kid's sort of half in it because it doesn't need to be online at all then in that case and it's totally her right not to have them on there. So it's interesting. It's just always interesting to me, especially – they haven't done it again since, but for me when celebrities particularly do the emoji face pictures, I just think the photo doesn't need to be there at all. I think they've done some of the emoji faces. That's what I was saying. I think they did one with Disneyland and that was – But celebrities, lots of celebrities do that. I find that really odd. It doesn't need to be there. But in terms of what she's been putting out lately, it is interesting there has been an uptick. There was a lot of criticism when she launched With Love, Megan, because it wasn't filmed in their house. And there was the whole thing about inauthenticity. People wanted to see what her life was like and her as a parent in order for her to promote this brand, because that's what it's all about, really. And so I suppose she's trying to put forward as much of that as she's comfortable with. But there has certainly been a lot more of the kids this year. Very interesting. Is the aim now, you know, we've seen the actress, we've seen a member of the working royals, we've seen like an entrepreneur and a businesswoman, is now her aim to, all these videos to show that she, to remind everyone she's a mother? I mean, possibly. It's hard to know what era we're in with this. I suppose she's, because with Love Megan, it hasn't been commissioned for another season. So this is all about, as ever now, I suppose, promoting that brand, which is a lifestyle homewares brand. And part of that is being a parent in this life that she lives. So I suppose it is all related to that. But it's honestly hard to know. I get the feeling that Megan wants to use her children to help promote her business and brand and everything else, but doesn't want to give you a good look at the kids because then she may be criticised for using the children in that fashion. Again, I agree with Bronte. It's a matter for her. If she doesn't want to show the kids' faces, then she doesn't want to show the kids' faces. It's not a problem. Eventually, I foresee that eventually we will end up getting a picture of the kids, maybe at a school function by taken by another parent, whether inadvertently or deliberately, we will eventually get to see the faces of these two children. But will it matter? I don't think so. Megan, according to Finding Freedom, Omin Scobie's book all those years ago, he... That feels like decades ago, yes. Well, it's a matter of record. It's a published book. he wrote that Meghan did not want to serve her child up on a silver platter. I always find this interesting only because in their roles, and again, it's such a unique role being a royal, particularly a member of the British royal family. And what we were saying about William and Catherine, they have managed to do it in a way where obviously there is global demand to see their children and see their family on the whole. And rightly so, they should be able to draw the line on where that is. but they've managed to create this system whereby they are very protected because they deliver specific organised pictures at the time that they want and of their choosing, and often Catherine takes the photos. And in that way, there are no pat-pics of the kids out and about. They exist, no one uses them. Well, exactly, because there's a level of protection. Now, that level of protection does not exist in the US. So, I mean, there's different things. Of course, there are laws and a whole other set in the US, but in terms of the royal family's protection, the Walesers have actually got more protection around their children and their image getting out there than Harry and Meghan do in the US. So as you say about serving it up, well, as Oman Scopey wrote, about serving the kids up on the platter, I think that there is, it probably would feel a little bit more safe here in that regard because they are left alone outside of those moments that, as I say, Catherine takes a photo of the kids in the garden and sends that out a month later and people are happy with that. Well, to be fair, it wasn't just finding freedom. In the Netflix show, Harry did also say that the amount of abuse that we got, especially both of us, for not wanting to serve our child up on a silver platter was incredible. I mean, are they kind of half serving their children up on a silver platter by showing the backs of their heads on Instagram anyway? I think they probably are. But again, it's a matter for them. I'm not going to be jumping up and down about whether I see Archie or Lilibet's faces. in the near future. But maybe they're the ones who think that if the faces were seen, then they could be accused of using the children for their own ends. Are they ultimately going to use the children for their own ends to promote, she's already used a little bit to promote sections of As Ever when she's put videos out? I don't know. I mean, it's really hard to say anything. And I agree with Bronte, it's hard to criticise them for that. You know, the Walesers have gone one way. They've found the right way of dealing with publicity for their children at various times of the year. And they take time, both William and Catherine, take time off during school holidays to be with the kids and everything else. You don't see pictures of them. You don't see any pictures. I know we don't use them anymore and everything else, which is quite right. and the Sussexes have chosen a different route and that that route is that you end up with Lilibet with bunny ears and Archie running down holding the basket and that's it but that's fine by me I'm not bothered one way or another I think there's no perfect answer when it's children involved in the public eye particularly with that level of global attention with any member of the royal family I think there's just no perfect answer and it's it's gonna it's awkward in any way it's really difficult i was accused the other day i was dealt into this conversation on a and i was accused of being naive for saying that the that megan and harry were not using their children to make money but i just struggled to see it i again i i think particularly with the way harry was brought up i think there is a real passion from him that is very genuine to protect his kids because he does rightly or wrongly feel that how he was raised in the public eye he feels there were missteps and that he clearly has trauma associated to that so i think there is a genuine and push from him. Harry's not had a bad childhood. Well, I'm saying, but I said his perception of it. I remember being around when Harry's sitting in the back of a car and, you know, he was passing by, sticking two fingers up to various photographers, which is fine. How old was he? He was about five or seven. Oh, goodness. You know, and Diana had to tell him off. I mean, she literally ripped into him about the way. But that was being rude. So this perception that Harry had this poor, dreadful childhood is absolutely rubbish. I mean, he had a very nice childhood. Unfortunately, it came to an end with the tragic death of his mother. And like William and Harry, they both suffered greatly as a result of it, which is a great, great shame. But this thing about him, you know, being unloved. I mean, I've been on ski slopes with him when he's been with his father. And you couldn't meet a more devoted father pre-Diana's death or even after Diana's death. You know, so I think he's, as the Queen says, recollections may vary. I completely agree with you. And if you think of all the efforts that, you know, Diana would take them to Thorpe Park, you know, and all the palaces and places they got to run around. And I remember he was writing about all you spoke about saying, when I was, you know, I like taking Archie out on the bike because I couldn't do that as a child. You just search our picture archive and there's about 30 of them. And I said it was his perception. I'm speaking on his perception of his childhood and what he wrote in spare and what he has said. So I wasn't there. I don't know what his childhood was like, but that's what he thinks. Yes, but I mean, I remember Ken Worf, the realtor protection officer, and Harry would come up to him at various times and he'd say, oh, can I be a policeman today? And he'd actually give him a radio. And so they would talk to each other when they were at Kensington Palace. and actually one sort of Ken decided I'd better check in and see where he is and he was actually across the road he was slightly older than five or seven you'd hope so at that point he was kind of getting the sack but he'd actually gone out of the gates and across the road to near a record shop you know Ken was aghast at this and you know obviously I had to go and get him really quick so this you know I've reined in I'm a poor child and all this other stuff he hasn't got a clue what it was like it really hasn't this is the spare rebuttal no i completely agree with everything he's just said um now bronte what we um don't do on this show very often is um is is celebrate the fact that we we enjoy having you on the show oh okay you're you're you're royal exclusive family okay you've been on like from the original uh episodes that we've screened is there a cake or but a little birdie has told me that you're going to go to Australia with the Sussexes. So Royal Exclusive will effectively be on tour with the Sussexes. And now you've got to pay for your dinner. Okay. Yes. Because you've been on this show for quite a long time. What gossip can you tell us about what people can expect from seeing Harry and Meghan in Australia? Well, it's going to be a very interesting tour. Now, many people will remember they haven't been back since 2018. So I was on that royal tour as well, which was a royal tour back then. They were newlyweds. It was a lot of excitement. I was at the harbour when there was thousands of people. This is very different. So what we know, as you say, I will be back for the week. I will be travelling to all their engagements and seeing what unfolds during that time. But they are travelling as private citizens now, so it will be very interesting. No taxpayers' money. They're insisting on saying no taxpayers' money. Well, there's surely going to be police officers there. There's surely going to be some kind of infrastructure surrounding them. But they've been very clear to say that this is not being funded by taxpayers. So I know there was a campaign which got a few thousand signatures about all this. But just to be clear, they have said that very plainly. So what we can expect, we already know there are two marquee events. And it will be Prince Harry speaking at a workplace mental health summit in Melbourne. So the couple will be there. And then we also know that Meghan is going to be the keynote speaker at her best life retreat. Now, they're both getting paid for that, I would imagine. They are both getting paid for that. As I say, this is a trip as private citizens, so they are both, they would be paid events. Megan will be doing a Q on stage with an Australian media identity And there will be I think there about 300 tickets they were going I sure The Sun wrote about this as well There were tickets were going for about So not cheap to get into, but you'll get to be up close and personal with the Duchess of Sussex. However, they've now built in throughout the week. The official itinerary has not been released yet, but what I'm hearing is it will be charity engagements that are to do with things to do with mental health, youth and women's issues. And, of course, Harry has very strong ties to the veterans' military community in Australia. He's spent a lot of time with them over the years. So we can very much expect that this is all going to be built in across at least Sydney and Melbourne while they're there for those few days. Sounds like a royal tour. Well, it does. Well, that's a good point, Matt. It will be really, really interesting because, as I said, it's the first time they've been back. It's a very different landscape for them this time around as opposed to last time. but they will be in the same place as they were back then. So we'll just have to wait and see. And I will certainly be delivering you any news from the ground. Charlie, this is different to Colombia and Nigeria. This is Australia. People know, you know, these are royal fans that line the streets for the king and queen just 18 months ago and were there for Harry and Meghan back in 2018 or 2019. The king is the head of state in Australia. And Harry and Meghan and Bronte are off to Australia for this. I mean, I think this is more problematic than any trip that they've done in the past. I suppose it is, but you've got to remember this trip is going to be vastly different from 2018. As Bronte's just said, that was a proper royal tour. This isn't. And the sounds and the voices that are coming out of Australia at the moment are very akin to the sounds and voices that are in Britain at the moment, that they're not as popular as they may have once been over there. now they're going over there and as i've said to you many times before i've got no problems with them making money whatsoever i couldn't care less how they make money however what i do care about is the fact is if there were just harry wales and megan wales nobody would care they are using their royal titles and their royal links if you like to man to to do these sort of things and make money Now, she's going to have this fireside chat, 300 people paying £1,500 apiece to sit in a room with her. Now, as I understand it, the photograph that's going to be taken is going to be taken with her and 300 people. You're not going to get, as I understand it, not an individual photograph. I think it's per table, if I could just clarify. Just one point. All right. Even per table, I'd say, what, 10 at a table or whatever else. But, I mean, I'm hearing that not all these tickets are going, you know, and that is a lot of money, you know. And with Harry, I think Harry's money is it's something like $486 for those who want to be virtually involved in that meeting. And then it's almost nearly $1,000 if you actually want to be at the actual meeting. So what you're saying, Charlie, is they're going on what appears to be a royal tour to a country where the king is head of state and making money for appearance fees. Yeah. And as I said, I don't mind them making the money. It's the links that they've got that allow them to make that money. They want to make money, as they have done with Netflix. I mean, there is an argument that says would Netflix have even bothered with them if they weren't members of the royal family? No, I don't think so. But, you know, they need to stand on their own two feet and get divorced from not divorced each of them, but divorced from the links with the monarchy. Well, there you go, Bronte. I know. I've said it will be great. I'm actually it will be great in that I'm I'm very interested. Well, it'd be lovely to be back in Australia to visit to visit my people. but it will also it will be very interesting, it's an interesting new era for them, it is the first time they've been back after everything that's gone on and so just watching how that unfolds because of course they're divisive in a lot of places, they have a lot of fans but they also have a lot of critics and it'll be interesting to see how this all goes. When the King and Queen were there recently when we were there, you know, every event where there was a public kind of walkabout they were filled with just royal family friends, royal family fans there are a lot of royal family fans I wonder how many people in Australia will come out to see them as royal family fans. That will be the key to everything that goes on. I mean, I agree, again, agree with Bronte that it's going to be a fascinating royal trip for all sorts of reasons, for the highs and the obvious lows that are going to come. Can you see any pitfalls, any fears, any disasters that could come? I don't know about any disasters. I mean, the disasters will come, I suppose, at the two paid events, depending. I mean, people will be going through those two events with the fine-tooth comb to see, you know, how much money is made, how much money they actually get. Will any of that money be given to charity? There's not been any mention of that. Whereas, you know, other members of the royal family, when these things happen, as you know, the charities do tend to benefit from their visits because they're charitable. None of these are charitable trips that they're doing. Do you know what I think, Charlie? We'll leave Bronte's side on this because, you know, let her go away and enjoy the tour. We'll have a chat about this now. Do you know what worries me or what my perception of this is, is that this tour to Australia, King is the head of state in Australia. big royal fans in Australia this is like a dummy run for a Meghan and Harry tour in the UK well I disagree with you because I do not believe that Meghan will ever set foot in this country again I think it is, I think if it all goes well there and you know members of the Royal, you know it's Commonwealth, it's a realm and they're treated okay or it all goes well, Harry and his team will look at that and think, well, if we could do it in Australia, we can do a Harry and Meghan trip to the UK. Well, the one thing about the UK is that Harry insists he won't bring his family to this country ever again until the security matters are sorted out. He insists on having paid for police protection, paid for by the likes of us, paid for police protection whenever he visits. That's still a thorny subject. Are they going to have that in Australia? What? Well, armed protection in Australia. He's going to have armed protection in Australia because it will be supplied by the Australian authorities. And I suppose if he came here, he would get it as well, but not in the same fashion as he expects it to be given. I understand what you mean about the difficulties around why Meghan may never want to come back here. obviously it would be an issue where there may be people booing like they did a couple years ago and I don't think there's been any great appetite from her but I do think you make such an interesting point about it being a dummy run well done no I'm joking you always do I do think it could be seen that way because I think Australia I mean I'm based here I write for Australian publications there is a great interest in the monarchy there are a lot of people that as you said when you were on the tour there just 18 months ago, have a lot of love for the royal family and particularly for Charles. Of course, there's the division and there's the Republic conversation, but it's very similar, I believe, there to what it currently is here. So I do think it's probably the closest you're going to get to that sort of social climate of figuring out how people are going to feel about it. But with that said, I can't imagine there's going to be those huge public-facing events in the way that the royals do it anyway. But as I said, we're going to have to watch and see and find out. But I do I do think that's a very interesting point. Thanks. I'm on my own then. I think we've all we've all put down our bets and now we'll just see. All right. Well, let's see how it pans out. And we'd love to hear from you as it unfolds. And if Megan ever does come to this country, I will see nothing. OK, I don't believe that, Charlie. I don't believe that one moment. Right. Just got time for our quick fire questions. So Angela Kelly, the late queen's dresser, has said that the late queen used to like Dancing Queen by ABBA. what Abba song is number one at Buckingham Palace now? I love this fact because the idea of the late Queen dancing to Dancing Queen is incredible. I'm going to out myself as not really an Abba fan, sorry, but I like the idea of the King sort of having a Hugh Grant in Love Actually-esque moment of sort of dancing around the halls. You know when he does that? You know Love Actually. Don't pretend you've not seen it every year. So the idea of him dancing around to something like Waterloo, like just getting like really boppy you know that's that's how i'd like to imagine it well i i was trawling through the abba hits as you as you tend to do and i actually found one called the king has lost his crown oh which given the uh which was an on an album in 1979 which uh yes i missed that one which which given the you know the number of people that are calling for a republic you know and everything else but you know it's the old one it's it's it's got to be i suppose you know if your child the winner takes it all really you know i mean it's what with andrew and harry and everything else there's a there's a lot to there's a lot to win there very descriptive time that's the right answer yeah i think that is um now katherine wore a recycled dress to easter sunday but what iconic royal outfit would you love to see recycled into something new oh yes okay first of all shout out to that dress because it was self-portrait and it is she looked absolutely fantastic. It's one of my favourite looks of hers. I would love to see, I'm going to stay on Catherine as I regularly do, but I would love to see her in one of, there's two, so either Diana's the iconic bike shorts and university sweater. Can you imagine seeing it? Remember she used to get, it's always redone by Vogue. Other people have tried to recreate it, but I'd love to see Catherine in something like that. But also that beautiful navy velvet off the shoulder gown that Diana wore at the White House when she danced with John Travolta, those really famous pictures. That's one of my favourites of her outfits. And I think something like seeing Catherine wear something like that on a similar sort of visit would be cool. Well, for me, I would love to see the revenge dress that she wore at the night of the Serpentine dinner. That was after Charles's Dimbleby discussion. And I remember it vividly because we'd been given a press release saying this black dress that she's wearing is a Versace dress. and that's what appeared in the paper the following morning, only to find out that she decided to change at the last minute to a little known, I can't remember who it was, but it was a little known designer. And this was a really sexy dress, off the shoulders, black, mini, the whole business. I mean, she just looked a million, million dollars. Mind you, Diana could wear a cloth sack and ashes and she still looked real. That was a great one, yeah. And finally, what code name should we give to Harry and Meghan's tour of Australia? If you want to go deep in code, we could just say Bronte's Big Return. Okay, we'll do that. Well, I quite like it. I'm going back to Arbor again. Okay. Because I've been trolling through it. And they did a marvellous one here called Bang a Boomerang. So that, for me, would be a good one. You could put all the B-sides in the research for the show. I like that you said you were reading through it. But I like to imagine that every night you just go through all your favourite Abba songs. But unlike you, I do like Abba. I think they're a great group. I mean, you know, those two girls are very, very nice. All right. Well, knowing me, knowing you, thanks for coming. I appreciate it. Oh, Matt. Good luck in Australia. Thank you. Yes, best of luck. Thank you. That's sadly all we have time for on this week's Royal Exclusive. Thanks to my guests, Charlie Ray and Bronte Coy. And thanks to you, as always, for watching. Remember to subscribe to us here on our Royal Exclusive YouTube channel for all the latest Royal news and we'll see you next week